City Year Tulsa enrolled 791 students in ELA focus list for 21 weeks typically and 685 in Math focus list for 21 weeks typically
##
## Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction
##
## data: testpercentile by factor(in_FL)
## W = 1215429, p-value = 0.0483
## alternative hypothesis: true location shift is not equal to 0
##
## Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction
##
## data: testpercentile by factor(in_FL)
## W = 1236918, p-value = 0.4774
## alternative hypothesis: true location shift is not equal to 0
Using the Mann-Whitney U test to compare the MAP Reading percentile scores between ELA focus list and non ELA focus list students, the test results revealed a statistically significant difference in the grade scores between the two groups (p-value = 0.048304)
Using the Mann-Whitney U test to compare the MAP Reading percentile scores between Math focus list and non Math focus list students, the test results revealed a non-statistically significant difference in the grade scores between the two groups (p-value = 0.4774266)
Conclusion: Students enrolled in ELA focus list have a statistically significant difference of Spring MAP test percentile score compared to students not enrolled on an ELA focus list, however, there is no statistical significant difference of Spring MAP test percentile score for Mathematics focus list students when comparing students not enrolled on a Mathematics focus list
## Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
## dosage_type 3 5208 1736.2 7.488 5.4e-05 ***
## Residuals 3459 802002 231.9
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
## Tukey multiple comparisons of means
## 95% family-wise confidence level
##
## Fit: aov(formula = testpercentile_growth ~ dosage_type, data = map_growth_spring_ELA)
##
## $dosage_type
## diff lwr
## Low Dosage-High Dosage -7.6568143 -12.219127
## Moderate Dosage-High Dosage -6.8172189 -12.010187
## Not Enrolled On An ELA Focus List-High Dosage -7.7098170 -11.923985
## Moderate Dosage-Low Dosage 0.8395954 -2.815596
## Not Enrolled On An ELA Focus List-Low Dosage -0.0530027 -2.090825
## Not Enrolled On An ELA Focus List-Moderate Dosage -0.8925981 -4.102729
## upr p adj
## Low Dosage-High Dosage -3.094502 0.0000972
## Moderate Dosage-High Dosage -1.624251 0.0041662
## Not Enrolled On An ELA Focus List-High Dosage -3.495649 0.0000159
## Moderate Dosage-Low Dosage 4.494787 0.9350162
## Not Enrolled On An ELA Focus List-Low Dosage 1.984820 0.9998928
## Not Enrolled On An ELA Focus List-Moderate Dosage 2.317533 0.8913065
ELA focus list students enrolled before the Spring MAP Test grew by 1 percentage points on their Reading MAP Test compared to 0 for students not enrolled on an ELA focus list.
ELA focus list students enrolled before the Spring MAP Test has a typical fall-to-spring conditional growth of 49 percentage points on their Reading MAP Test compared to 43 for non-ELA focus list students.
##
## Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction
##
## data: falltospringconditionalgrowthper by factor(in_FL)
## W = 807789, p-value = 0.4385
## alternative hypothesis: true location shift is not equal to 0
## Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
## dosage_type 3 555 184.9 1.175 0.318
## Residuals 3334 524675 157.4
Math focus list students enrolled before the Spring MAP Test grew by -2 percentage points on their Mathematics MAP Test compared to -1 for non-Math focus list students.
Math focus list students enrolled before the Spring MAP Test has a typical fall-to-spring conditional growth of 30 percentage points on their Mathematics MAP Test compared to 33 for non-Math focus list students.
Dosage types are defined as: High Dosage - More than 900 minutes Moderate Dosage - 450 to 900 minutes Low Dosage - Less than 450 minutes
Definitions for Met Projected Growth categories are defined by NWEA
##
## Spearman's rank correlation rho
##
## data: map_growth_spring_ELA_suspension$daysassigned and map_growth_spring_ELA_suspension$testpercentile_Spring
## S = 8.121e+09, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true rho is not equal to 0
## sample estimates:
## rho
## -0.1732884
##
## Spearman's rank correlation rho
##
## data: map_growth_spring_ELA_suspension_2022$daysassigned and map_growth_spring_ELA_suspension_2022$testpercentile_Spring
## S = 755377698, p-value = 3.367e-07
## alternative hypothesis: true rho is not equal to 0
## sample estimates:
## rho
## -0.1275199
##
## Spearman's rank correlation rho
##
## data: map_growth_spring_ELA_suspension_2019$daysassigned and map_growth_spring_ELA_suspension_2019$testpercentile_Spring
## S = 642237797, p-value = 1.514e-07
## alternative hypothesis: true rho is not equal to 0
## sample estimates:
## rho
## -0.1349334
##
## Spearman's rank correlation rho
##
## data: map_growth_spring_math_suspension$daysassigned and map_growth_spring_math_suspension$testpercentile_Spring
## S = 7312232270, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true rho is not equal to 0
## sample estimates:
## rho
## -0.1796204
##
## Spearman's rank correlation rho
##
## data: map_growth_spring_math_suspension_2022$daysassigned and map_growth_spring_math_suspension_2022$testpercentile_Spring
## S = 8100900252, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true rho is not equal to 0
## sample estimates:
## rho
## -0.1582976
##
## Spearman's rank correlation rho
##
## data: map_growth_spring_math_suspension_2019$daysassigned and map_growth_spring_math_suspension_2019$testpercentile_Spring
## S = 3054093224, p-value = 5.387e-14
## alternative hypothesis: true rho is not equal to 0
## sample estimates:
## rho
## -0.1491692
##
## Spearman's rank correlation rho
##
## data: map_growth_spring_ELA_ada$cum_ada_district and map_growth_spring_ELA_ada$testpercentile_Spring
## S = 5564156911, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true rho is not equal to 0
## sample estimates:
## rho
## 0.1961164
##
## Spearman's rank correlation rho
##
## data: map_growth_spring_ELA_ada_2022$final_ada and map_growth_spring_ELA_ada_2022$testpercentile_Spring
## S = 618099745, p-value = 0.002015
## alternative hypothesis: true rho is not equal to 0
## sample estimates:
## rho
## 0.07738903
##
## Spearman's rank correlation rho
##
## data: map_growth_spring_ELA_ada_2021$final_ada and map_growth_spring_ELA_ada_2021$testpercentile_Spring
## S = 260685374, p-value = 2.896e-08
## alternative hypothesis: true rho is not equal to 0
## sample estimates:
## rho
## 0.1574173
##
## Spearman's rank correlation rho
##
## data: map_growth_spring_ELA_ada_2019$final_ada and map_growth_spring_ELA_ada_2019$testpercentile_Spring
## S = 12022, p-value = 0.5564
## alternative hypothesis: true rho is not equal to 0
## sample estimates:
## rho
## 0.09223559
##
## Spearman's rank correlation rho
##
## data: map_growth_spring_math_ada$cum_ada_district and map_growth_spring_math_ada$testpercentile_Spring
## S = 4866690992, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true rho is not equal to 0
## sample estimates:
## rho
## 0.214898
##
## Spearman's rank correlation rho
##
## data: map_growth_spring_math_ada_2022$final_ada and map_growth_spring_math_ada_2022$testpercentile_Spring
## S = 5739945803, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true rho is not equal to 0
## sample estimates:
## rho
## 0.1792807
##
## Spearman's rank correlation rho
##
## data: map_growth_spring_math_ada_2021$final_ada and map_growth_spring_math_ada_2021$testpercentile_Spring
## S = 2962359564, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true rho is not equal to 0
## sample estimates:
## rho
## 0.2329964
##
## Spearman's rank correlation rho
##
## data: map_growth_spring_math_ada_2019$final_ada and map_growth_spring_math_ada_2019$testpercentile_Spring
## S = 3194615, p-value = 0.01462
## alternative hypothesis: true rho is not equal to 0
## sample estimates:
## rho
## 0.145272